ITAT cancels penalty under section 271B for delayed tax audit filing, citing genuine reasons

The ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271B for delayed filing of the Tax audit report. The decision emphasized genuine reasons for the delay, attributing it to technical challenges and workload pressures faced by the Chartered Accountants firm. The ITAT found the delay reasonable and not intentional, directing the AO to cancel the penalty due to the absence of deliberate misconduct.

---

---

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271B for non-filing of Tax audit report within the due date.

Analysis:
The appellant, a partnership firm of Chartered Accountants, filed its income tax return with a total income of Rs. 18,13,363 on 29.11.2013, after the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B as the firm failed to submit the Tax Audit Report under section 44AB before the due date. Despite explanations citing technical difficulties and workload pressure, the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 46,462. The Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals upheld the penalty, leading the appellant to appeal before the ITAT.

During the ITAT hearing, no representation was made by the appellant, and the arguments of the Departmental Representative (DR) were considered. The key issue revolved around the penalty imposed under section 271B for the delayed filing of the Tax audit report. The AO justified the penalty due to a 29-day delay in filing the return and report. However, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had extended the due date from 30.09.2013 to 31.10.2013. The appellant contended that the delay was marginal, with no deliberate intent, attributing it to technical challenges and workload pressures. The firm, specializing in auditing, faced difficulties in electronically filing the returns due to technical glitches. Considering the explanations, the ITAT found the delay to be reasonable, not intentional, and directed the AO to cancel the penalty, allowing the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed by the lower authorities. The decision highlighted the genuine reasons for the delay, emphasizing technical issues and workload pressures faced by the Chartered Accountants firm. The ITAT's verdict underscored the absence of deliberate misconduct, leading to the cancellation of the penalty under section 271B.

---